ArticleJMIR AI2025
Clinical Laboratory Parameter-Driven Machine Learning for Participant Selection in Bioequivalence Studies Among Patients With Gastric Cancer: Framework Development and Validation Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Insufficient participant enrollment is a major factor responsible for clinical trial failure. Objective: We formulated a machine learning (ML)-based framework using clinical laboratory parameters to identify participants eligible for enrollment in a bioequivalence study. Methods: We acquired records of 11,592 patients with gastric cancer from the electronic medical records of Kyungpook National University Hospital in Korea. The ML model was developed using 8 clinical laboratory parameters, including complete blood count and liver and kidney function tests, along with the dates of acquisition. Two datasets were collected: (1) a training dataset to design an ML-based candidate selection method and (2) a test dataset to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. The generalization performance of the ML-based method was confirmed using the F1-score and the area under the curve (AUC). The proposed model was compared with a random selection method to evaluate its efficacy in recruiting participants. Results: The weighted ensemble model achieved strong performance with an F1-score above 0.8 and an AUC value exceeding 0.8, demonstrating its ability to accurately identify valid clinical trial candidates while minimizing misclassification. Its high sensitivity further enhanced the model's efficiency in prioritizing patients for screening. In a case study, the proposed ML model reduced the workload by 57%, efficiently identifying 150 valid patients from a pool of 209, compared to the 485 patients required by random selection. Conclusions: The proposed ML-based framework using clinical laboratory parameters can be used to identify patients eligible for a clinical trial, enabling faster participant enrollment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.